What did federal law deliver?

Did the law reach the citizen?

A law can move money, create a right, change a tax bill or give an agency new power. The citizen’s question comes next: what changed in daily life, who gained, who paid, and did the change last?

This page develops the supplied Appendix D into an evidence record for the book. It preserves the original below. The checked findings here correct several important claims; the complete law-by-law outcome review remains unfinished.

Scope: Selected legislation from 2015 through 2025. These dates cover eleven calendar years. The supplied table has 23 entries, including one grouped annual defense entry. Its summary also names the Every Student Succeeds Act, which has no table row. These are 24 named topics, not yet a reconciled count of individual laws.

Compare the selected laws

Twenty-four topics from the source table and summary. One topic groups annual defense laws; another names an education law missing from the source table. This is a coverage map, not a count of 24 separately verified laws. Linked rows lead to the precise checks and sources; no whole-law outcome verdict is implied.

Keep the promise, the mechanism and the result separate

1. Promise: What problem did the law say it would address?
2. Legal change: What did the enacted section actually authorize, require, fund or protect?
3. Delivery: What was paid, built, enforced or received? State the period and population.
4. Benefit and burden: Which households and organizations gained or lost? A contractor’s payment does not establish the absence of a public benefit.
5. Duration: Was the provision temporary, ongoing, changed later or not yet in effect?
6. Evidence: What source supports each finding, and what remains unknown?

Use a separate entry for a major provision when an omnibus law contains different policies. Do not treat an authorization as money spent, a forecast as an observed result, or an entire law as having only one beneficiary.

Tax cuts: the permanence comparison needs repair

The supplied appendix describes the 2017 corporate rate reduction as permanent but later credits the 2025 law with making it permanent. Those statements should not stand together. More importantly, the 2025 law also made the individual income-tax rate tables permanent. IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-32, section 2.01, identifies section 70101 and the seven individual rates that remain in effect.

Citizen finding: A sound comparison must identify which individual and business provisions were temporary, which were extended, and who receives their benefits. Permanence alone does not establish a fair distribution. The budget estimates below establish dates and scope. The household comparison below supplies a dated distributional forecast; actual outcomes still need follow-through evidence.

Did the 2017 business tax cuts reach workers?

A business can invest more without every household gaining. To test the rising-tide claim, follow the chain: lower business taxes, added investment, better pay, and the public cost.

Evidence for investment gains: Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick’s Summer 2024 review estimates that the business provisions raised total tangible corporate investment by about 11 percent. Their long-run estimates put the gain in gross domestic product below 1 percent and labor income below $1,000 per employee. These are estimated effects against a world without the changes, not a report that every worker received that amount. The review covers business provisions, not every individual tax change. Journal of Economic Perspectives, volume 38, pages 61–88; abstract.

The estimates are contested: The Congressional Research Service’s April 7, 2025 review challenges large investment estimates. It identifies problems with comparison groups, measurement of tax incentives and consistency with economy-wide investment data. Its conclusion is that the studies reviewed do not establish significant overall economic effects. Much of the evidence concerns 2018–2019; the pandemic complicates later comparisons. That assessment does not prove that every firm or worker gained nothing. CRS R48485, summary and introduction.

Citizen finding: A promise of gains for everyone needs evidence of who received them. An investment estimate alone cannot answer that question. Keep the research disagreement visible. Ask the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees to identify which provisions produced measurable gains in ordinary workers’ pay, over what period, and at what revenue cost. Request results by income group and a comparison with other uses of the same public money. Save the reply in the follow-through record.

A gain in the average can conceal a loss at the bottom

CBO’s August 11, 2025 analysis of the enacted law projects different results across the income distribution. These are average annual changes over 2026–2034 relative to its January 2025 baseline, in 2025 dollars.

CBO attributes the bottom group’s projected loss mainly to reduced in-kind benefits such as Medicaid and SNAP; the top group’s gain mainly to lower taxes. The middle groups also gain in this analysis. These are group averages, not results for every family, and the highest tenth is not the top one percent. CBO enacted-law analysis, pages 4–6.

What “resources” means: This measure combines taxes, cash transfers, noncash benefits, states’ responses, and other spending allocated to households. It is not take-home pay. The analysis excludes some tax provisions, extra debt-service costs and the law’s macroeconomic effects. CBO scope and exclusions. Its interactive source lets readers separate these channels and change the years.

Citizen finding: This supports a specific criticism: under the stated method, the law increases average resources while reducing them for the lowest-income group. It does not establish that only corporations benefit. A rising national average cannot answer whether the household with the least margin for loss is better off.

Use the forecast as a dated test. Follow eligibility, benefits received, taxes owed and access to care as provisions take effect. Compare observed changes with the forecast and explain other causes. Do not present a projected loss as something already measured.

Tax and Medicaid estimates: attach the period and the baseline

The source’s deficit figures describe forecasts, not money already lost. Keep each estimate with its publication date, fiscal years and assumptions.

Citizen finding: The $4.7 trillion figure has support. Label it as the February 2026 projection for 2026–2035. Its difference from the earlier $4.1 trillion estimate is not a measured overrun: the period and analysis differ.

Medicaid: the fiscal effect and the coverage effect

CBO’s October 28, 2025 explanation estimates that the law’s Medicaid chapter would reduce deficits by $886.8 billion over 2025–2034 and increase the uninsured population by 7.5 million in 2034, relative to the January 2025 baseline. The deficit figure combines spending and revenue changes; it is not a direct measure of Medicaid benefits removed. The coverage figure concerns this chapter, not every provision of the law. CBO Medicaid chapter estimate.

For the citizen, fiscal savings and lost access must appear together. These estimates do not establish the source’s unspecified “$1 trillion+” Medicaid-cut claim. They provide a defined forecast to compare with later enrollment, care and spending records. A projected coverage loss is serious evidence of risk; it is not a count of people already uninsured.

Child poverty: use the corrected series

The August 2026 Census working paper provides corrected poverty estimates. Its Table 4 reports the following rates for people under 18 using the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which includes taxes, credits and some noncash benefits.

The sharp fall and rebound remain visible. Census, Revising Supplemental Poverty Measure Estimates from 2019 to 2024, Table 4, page 11. The paper reports that the corrections do not meaningfully alter the overall trend.

The earlier Census account identifies the expanded Child Tax Credit as a contributor to the decline. That does not make the entire year-to-year change the isolated effect of one provision. Census’s original 2021 analysis. The subsequent report also identifies the end of pandemic stimulus payments and temporary tax-credit expansions among the relevant changes. Census’s 2022 release.

Citizen finding: Record the temporary benefit, its expiry and the measured reversal. Use a separate evaluation to assign the amount caused by that provision alone.

Marriage recognition is a citizen protection

The Respect for Marriage Act, enacted December 13, 2022, protects recognition of qualifying marriages. Section 4 addresses state recognition and provides enforcement routes. Section 5 addresses recognition under federal law. Public Law 117-228, sections 4–5.

This is a concrete legal protection even if none of the appendix’s 21 indicators measures it. It should not be described as a full substitute for every part of the constitutional marriage right. The text concerns recognition; it does not itself impose a general requirement that every state issue marriage licenses.

Citizen finding: Track rights gained and means of enforcement alongside material outcomes. A measure can be incomplete without the protection being worthless.

Restore the missing education entry

The Every Student Succeeds Act was enacted December 10, 2015. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and includes assessment, reporting and school-accountability provisions. Department of Education overview; Public Law 114-95, including section 1005.

The source summary places this law in its capital-beneficiary category without a corresponding row or evidence chain. Restore the row before counting it. Evaluate outcomes for students and schools, implementation costs and any supplier gains separately.

Marketplace premiums: what did the household have to pay?

ARPA expanded premium tax credits for 2021–2022; the Inflation Reduction Act extended those enhancements through 2025. The enhancements expired at the end of 2025. The underlying premium tax credit continued for eligible households. CRS explanation of the two laws and the underlying credit; Maine’s official Marketplace expiration notice.

Three different prices can appear in a headline: the insurer’s full premium, the premium after federal tax credits, and the household’s final bill after any state assistance. A rate increase for the same plan is also different from an average across the plans people selected.

The increase is $65 a month, about 58%, calculated from the rounded values. These national averages include people receiving no advance tax credit. They reflect plan selections and automatic renewals, not verified payment or continuous coverage. State premium subsidies are not reflected. Changing plans and changing enrollment also affect the comparison. CMS 2026 Open Enrollment Report, pages 13–14, Table 5 and notes.

Citizen finding: Replace the source’s undefined “premiums up 20 percent nationally” with a named measure and population. The CMS comparison documents higher average premiums after federal assistance for selected plans. It does not isolate how much of the increase came from subsidy expiration, or show what happened to every household. It is a 2026 follow-up to the 2015–2025 legislative record.

To test whether protection lasted, compare the same household’s renewal notices: full premium, federal credit, state assistance, deductible and provider network. Record whether the household kept coverage, changed plans or went without. A lower premium obtained by accepting a higher deductible is not automatically a lower cost of care.

Medicare: more than ten negotiated drug prices

The appendix’s “10 drugs of thousands” description omits other direct protections. The Inflation Reduction Act capped a month’s supply of each covered insulin product at $35 under Medicare Part D starting in 2023. It also established a $2,000 annual out-of-pocket threshold for covered Part D drugs in 2025. CMS’s 2025 benefit explanation.

The threshold is $2,100 in 2026. It is a covered-drug cost-sharing limit, not a ceiling on premiums, all medical bills or every medicine. CMS Fast Facts, April 2026. The first ten negotiated drug prices have a January 1, 2026 effective date, after the appendix’s 2015–2025 observation window. CMS’s first-cycle price record.

Citizen finding: Count the cost-sharing protections already in effect by 2025 separately from negotiation results beginning in 2026. A count of drugs alone cannot measure household relief. Compare covered patients’ actual bills, premiums and access before claiming a net saving. The marketplace discussion addresses subsidy duration and selected-plan premiums; climate and other tax provisions need separate assessment.

PACT Act: a defined population can receive a substantial benefit

The law expands VA care and benefits for eligible veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange and other toxic substances. It is broader than burn-pit care alone. VA’s explanation of eligibility and benefits.

VA’s April 24, 2026 dashboard reports 2,433,377 approved PACT Act claims and 1,925,612 veterans or survivors with approved PACT-related claims for August 10, 2022 through March 31, 2026. Claims and people are different counts. Its definition of an approved claim requires at least one issue granted; approval does not mean every requested condition was accepted. VA dashboard, pages 1–2 and definitions on page 6.

Citizen finding: “Specific to veterans” describes eligibility, not the size or adequacy of the benefit. These are dated administrative results extending into 2026, not independent proof of improved health or a count through 2025. Follow benefits received, waiting times, denials and access to care. The original table should retain the defined population while reporting actual delivery.

Social Security Fairness Act: identify the adjustment and the people affected

The law signed January 5, 2025 repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset. These rules reduced some benefits where a person received a pension from work not covered by Social Security. The change applies to benefits payable for January 2024 onward. It does not give every public employee an increase.

SSA reported more than 3.1 million payments totaling $17 billion sent by July 7, 2025. That is evidence of payments delivered, not merely authority enacted. The agency describes affected retirement, disability, spouse and survivor benefits; the population is broader than public-sector retirees alone. SSA implementation record, updated July 21, 2025.

Citizen finding: Preserve the defined eligibility and report the actual payment milestone. Do not call this a universal retirement repair. Measure the remaining gaps in retirement security separately from the benefit delivered by this repeal.

First Step Act: the initial release count is not the lifetime result

The appendix’s approximate 3,100 releases refers to an early implementation event. DOJ’s April 2022 report states that applying the new good-conduct-time calculation on July 19, 2019 resulted in the immediate release of 3,163 people from Bureau of Prisons custody. DOJ First Step Act Annual Report, discussion of good conduct time.

The Act contains other provisions, including earned time credits and changes affecting federal sentencing. Good conduct time and earned time credits are different mechanisms with different rules. Bureau of Prisons explanation.

Citizen finding: Label 3,163 as the July 2019 event, not total beneficiaries through 2025. A complete assessment needs later implementation, eligibility and access records, as well as sentencing and reentry outcomes. Federal scope is a real limit; it does not measure the value of a restored year of liberty to a person or family.

Trade secrets: enforcement power and worker protections

The Defend Trade Secrets Act created a federal civil route for owners of qualifying misappropriated trade secrets. That can strengthen a business’s enforcement power. The statute also restricts employment-related injunctions: conditions must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely what a person knows. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1) and (3).

The law includes immunity under federal and state trade-secret law for specified confidential disclosures to officials or an attorney to report or investigate suspected illegality, and for qualifying sealed filings. This is not blanket permission to publish secrets or access records unlawfully. 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b).

Citizen finding: Record the enforcement expansion and the disclosure protections together. The source’s industry-benefit judgment needs evidence about litigation, worker mobility, costs and how the protections operate. Statutory safeguards do not prove that practical burdens disappeared; their existence also rules out describing the law as providing no relevant citizen protection.

Medical evidence: identify the exact change

The 21st Century Cures Act directed FDA to evaluate real-world evidence—information from sources outside traditional clinical trials—for specified uses involving already-approved drugs and postapproval studies. The provision expressly preserves the substantial-evidence standard and other listed approval standards. 21 U.S.C. § 355g(a), (b) and (f)(2).

FDA describes the resulting program and framework as evaluating this evidence for new indications and postapproval requirements. FDA real-world evidence program.

Citizen finding: The appendix’s blanket statement that the law lowered FDA evidence standards is too broad. Identify the particular pathway, evidentiary change and approval decision being criticized. Then examine safety, effectiveness, access and cost. This statutory check does not establish that every implementation choice maintained evidence quality, nor does it evaluate the whole Act’s research and health provisions.

SECURE Act: participation is a benefit to examine

The 2019 law did more than expand annuity options. Section 112 opened a 401(k) participation route for certain long-term part-time employees, using three consecutive 12-month periods with at least 500 hours in each, subject to age and other conditions. IRS Notice 2020-68, section C.

Citizen finding: Access to make contributions is different from having enough income to save or receiving employer contributions. Examine participation, balances, fees and income adequacy before assigning the whole law’s benefit to insurers and employers. The three-year description is the original law’s design; later SECURE 2.0 changes require a separate entry and current plan-rule check.

Electoral count: a specific protection against a specific failure

The 2022 reform limits the presiding vice president to ministerial duties and denies unilateral power to decide electoral-vote disputes. An objection requires signatures from one-fifth of each chamber’s members duly chosen and sworn, and sustaining it requires separate concurring votes of both chambers. 3 U.S.C. § 15(b) and (d).

Citizen finding: These are defined restraints on an abuse of power. They do not resolve every election problem. Assess whether the count follows these rules and examine remaining vulnerabilities separately; “narrow” alone is not a measure of the protection’s importance.

Laken Riley Act: distinguish arrest from conviction

The January 29, 2025 law expands mandatory detention for people in specified inadmissibility categories when listed criminal triggers apply. Section 2 includes arrest and charge, as well as conviction and specified admissions. The listed offenses include theft-related offenses, assault of a law-enforcement officer, and crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Public Law 119-1, section 2.

Citizen finding: The record must account for detention before conviction, the precise immigration categories, affected families and opportunities for legal review. Calling contractors the primary beneficiary requires contracting and financial evidence. Claims of improved safety likewise require outcome evidence. Neither conclusion follows from enactment alone.

GENIUS Act: distinguish a regulatory framework from a result

The July 18, 2025 law establishes a payment-stablecoin framework. Section 4 requires permitted issuers to maintain qualifying reserves on at least a one-to-one basis and disclose redemption policies, fees and monthly reserve composition. Section 20 sets a general effective-date formula: the earlier of 18 months after enactment or 120 days after the primary federal regulators issue implementing final regulations. Public Law 119-27, sections 4 and 20.

Citizen finding: “Legalized issuance” omits the framework’s conditions and consumer-facing duties. The enacted formula is not proof that all rules are currently effective or working. Evaluate reserve compliance, redemption, losses, enforcement and industry gains before judging the balance. This entry does not recommend buying a stablecoin or establish the status of any issuer.

FAST Act: a funding commitment is not a measured gap closure

The law signed December 4, 2015 authorized $305 billion for fiscal years 2016–2020 across surface-transportation programs, including highways, transit, rail and safety. Federal Highway Administration’s FAST Act overview.

Citizen finding: The source’s five-year amount has an official basis. Its “15% of gap” does not yet have a documented denominator, period or matching definition of infrastructure. Do not publish that percentage as a measured result. Trace completed projects, safety and service changes, cost and remaining need. A payment to a construction firm and a safer public bridge can be results of the same program.

Infrastructure Act: follow funds through to service

GAO’s April 2025 report identified $711.8 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act grant funding available to Tribes, states, localities and territories. Of this, $580.6 billion became available for obligation in fiscal years 2022–2025. As of December 31, 2024, agencies reported $275.1 billion obligated and $119.4 billion outlayed.

The outlays were 21% of the $580.6 billion then available and 17% of the $711.8 billion identified grant total. Neither percentage measures the infrastructure gap closed. This is a dated grant-funding subset, not the entire law’s price tag or a current spending total. GAO-25-107243, funding status and scope.

Citizen finding: An obligation commits money; an outlay pays it. A completed, usable service is a further result. The source’s “30% of gap” needs a defined need estimate and matching outcomes. Report miles repaired, service reliability, water quality, connections or other appropriate measures alongside costs. Keep later funding changes separate from this December 2024 snapshot.

CHIPS: awards, payments and factories are different results

GAO reports that the 2022 law appropriated $39 billion for semiconductor facility incentives under authority established in the fiscal 2021 defense law. As of July 2025, Commerce had awarded $30.9 billion in direct funding to 19 companies for 40 projects, plus $5.5 billion in loans to two companies. It had disbursed $6 billion. One project was certified complete in June 2025. GAO-26-107882, July 2025 award and implementation snapshot.

These figures cover facility incentives, not every research or science provision. They do not support treating the source’s rounded $52 billion as money already paid to companies. Nor does one completed project establish that the entire investment has delivered its promised public return.

Later evidence, outside the appendix’s period: GAO’s August 2026 report supplies distinct snapshots:

• April 2026: The detailed disbursement section reports $13.1 billion paid against $31.2 billion in direct awards. Payments include milestones, workforce and design activities, and Intel’s amended terms. Payment does not always mean a completed factory milestone.
• July 15, 2026: The award discussion reports approximately $31.7 billion across 49 projects and 24 companies. Seven later projects are excluded from the April milestone analysis.
• Research: Commerce canceled awards representing $7.8 billion of the $11 billion appropriated for advanced microelectronics R&D. GAO recommended plans and timelines to meet statutory requirements; Commerce agreed.

Source discrepancy: The highlights instead name $31.5 billion in direct funding. The report does not explain that figure’s difference from the detailed April total. This appendix uses the explicitly dated detail and calculates no spending ratio from the conflicting highlights.

Citizen finding: The companies are direct recipients. The public return must be tested through production, reliability, workforce benefits, public cost and enforceable award conditions. A factory award, a paid milestone and a resilient supply chain are different achievements. Report each at its proper stage.

The 2018 budget law also funded disaster recovery

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 includes more than a spending-cap agreement. Its disaster division appropriates funds for housing, water systems and other recovery needs. One example is $14 million for restoration of Women, Infants, and Children program infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands after Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Public Law 115-123, Division B, subdivision 1, title I.

Citizen finding: The original “none directly” label overlooks explicit citizen-serving programs. An appropriation still does not establish that the repair was completed. Review the cap agreement, disaster appropriations and service outcomes as separate provisions before judging the whole law.

The 2023 budget estimate is a forecast against a baseline

The Fiscal Responsibility Act suspended the debt limit through January 1, 2025 and changed spending and revenues. CBO’s June 9, 2023 analysis estimated $1.5 trillion less in projected deficits over the following ten years, reducing projected debt held by the public in 2033 from $46.7 trillion to $45.2 trillion. CBO’s contemporaneous estimate.

Citizen finding: That is a modeled difference from the baseline, not a $1.5 trillion payment recovered or a reduction already observed. Assess service effects, household burdens and later legislation separately. Debt-limit relief addresses payment authority; its beneficiaries cannot be inferred solely from the phrase “bond markets.”

Rescissions: name the programs and the authority removed

The July 24, 2025 law rescinded specified budget authority immediately. Its accounts include international assistance and funds made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Individual provisions contain exceptions; the global-health rescission, for example, protects specified programs while treating family planning and reproductive health differently. Public Law 119-28, section 2(b)(5) and (20).

Citizen finding: A rescission cancels budget authority; the later spending effect depends on what would otherwise have been paid. “Budget hawks” names a political position, not an economic beneficiary. Identify the canceled services, people affected, any replacement funding and the resulting fiscal change before classifying benefits and harms.

CARES Act: separate household relief from business support

Direct relief reached households. GAO reported that Treasury and IRS had issued 168.2 million first-round economic impact payments totaling $275.9 billion by February 28, 2021. This is a payment count, not a count of unique people. GAO, March 2021 pandemic review, Economic Impact Payments.

The first round came from CARES. Later rounds came from other laws. Adding them all to CARES would overstate its delivery. The law’s unemployment relief, business assistance and credit programs also need separate entries and measures.

Citizen finding: Temporary assistance can provide a real benefit while leaving the underlying insecurity in place. Record what reached households, who missed or waited for relief, and how long the protection lasted. Then compare those terms with business support. This payment milestone alone does not settle that comparison.

Safer Communities Act: distinguish a safeguard used from a life saved

In its June 25, 2024 implementation account, DOJ reported 800 firearm purchases stopped solely because enhanced checks for buyers under 21 found that the buyers were legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. DOJ two-year implementation fact sheet.

This dated agency count shows a safeguard being used. It does not establish 800 crimes prevented or 800 lives saved. A violence-reduction finding needs evaluation evidence, a comparison and a defined period. The Act’s grants and other provisions need their own delivery review.

Citizen finding: Ask what the safeguard did and whether it reduced harm. Keep both questions on the record. Do not erase a documented intervention because the broader problem persists, or treat the intervention count as proof that the problem was solved.

Defense laws: count years and follow the money

The source groups annual NDAAs for 2015–2024 into one entry. Each fiscal year needs its own record before an average can be calculated. Authorization, appropriations and actual spending are different measures.

For a bounded example, CRS reports that the enacted FY2024 NDAA authorized $874.2 billion within its scope. Its broader $886.3 billion defense budget figure includes amounts outside that scope or requiring additional authorization. CRS R48057, summary and funding discussion. Neither amount is a ten-year annual average or proof of money already spent.

Citizen finding: The source’s $850–900 billion annual-average claim remains unsupported. Build the annual series using one measure and fiscal-year convention. Then examine readiness, service-member support, contractor returns and civilian opportunity costs separately. Naming contractors as recipients does not by itself measure the public return.

What the current record can support

The appendix poses a useful question about the durability and distribution of public benefits. Its present totals cannot establish the proposed decade-wide pattern. The citizen-beneficial category says six but lists nine entries. A selected list also cannot prove that fifteen indicators received no significant legislation without a defined search, coverage rules and a law-to-indicator crosswalk.

The standard: Count comparable units. Apply the same beneficiary test to every provision. Record evidence that supports the argument and evidence that limits it. Then calculate the pattern.

For infrastructure, compare completed services and conditions with the stated need. For defense, separate each fiscal year’s authorization from appropriations and actual spending. For a new regulatory law, distinguish a framework enacted from rules implemented and harms prevented. A budget label or industry recipient is not an outcome measure.

Ask for the delivery record

Choose one law and one public promise. Identify the agency administering the provision and the legislative committee overseeing it. Ask for the existing implementation reports, spending records, outcome measures and evaluations.

For [law and section], please identify the benefit promised to [people affected], the amounts authorized and spent, the result measured, the period covered, and the office responsible for correcting a shortfall. Please distinguish completed delivery from forecasts and explain any missing evidence.

Use a public-records or oversight route appropriate to the institution. Keep the reply, test it against the original promise, and record what changed. For household outcomes, continue to Where the Benefit Stopped.

Original Appendix D

Supplied wording preserved, including its counts and claims. This is the source being reviewed, not a corrected final table. Line breaks and page numbers come from the supplied text.

APPENDIX D
MAJOR
FEDERAL LAWS
2015 to 2025
Evaluating Legislative Outcomes Beyond Stated Intent
Twenty-four major federal laws over a decade. Each was assessed against
four criteria: stated purpose, actual effect, primary beneficiary, and citizen
failure addressed.
273
Fast Act
(2015)
Multi-Year
Highway
Funding
$305b Over
5 Years; Did
Not Close
Infrastructure
Gap
Construction
Industry; State
Dots
Infrastructure:
~15% Of Gap
Defend Trade
Secrets Act
(2016)
Federal Cause
Of Action For
Trade Secret
Theft
Expanded
Corporate
Ability To
Sue Former
Employees
Corporations
And Law
Firms
None
21st Century
Cures Act
(2016)
Accelerate
Drug And
Device
Approvals
Lowered Fda
Evidence
Standards
Pharmaceutical
And Medical
Device
Industry
None—
Increased
Cost
Pressure
Tax Cuts And
Jobs Act
(2017)
“Middle-Class
Tax Cut”
Corporate
Rate Cut
35%→21%
Permanent;
Individual
Cuts
Temporary;
Added $1.9t
To Deficit
Corporations,
Top 1%,
Shareholders
None—
Widened
Wealth
Concentra-
tion
First Step Act
(2018)
Federal
Criminal
Justice
Reform
Modest
Sentencing
Reform;
~3,100
Released
Early; State
Systems
Untouched
Federal
Prisoners
(Narrow)
Incarceration:
Minimal
Bipartisan
Budget Act
(2018)
Two-Year
Spending
Deal
Lifted
Budget Caps;
Increased
Defense And
Non-Defense
Spending
Defense
Contractors;
Federal
Agencies
None
Directly
Secure Act
(2019)
Retirement
Plan
Modernization
Modest 401(K)
Rule Changes;
Expanded
Annuity
Options
Insurance
Industry;
Employers
Retirement
Security:
Marginal
The Quiet Collapse
274
Cares Act
(2020)
Pandemic
Emergency
Response
$2.2t In
Payments, Un-
employment,
Ppp Loans;
Corporate
Bailouts
Mixed—
Direct Aid
To Citizens;
Bailouts To
Corporations
Pandemic
Emergency,
Not
Structural
American
Rescue Plan
Act (2021)
Pandemic
Recovery
Expanded
Child Tax
Credit
(One Year);
Enhanced
Aca Subsidies
(Temporary)
Mixed—Ctc
Cut Child
Poverty In
Half
Child
Poverty:
Addressed,
Then Expired
Infrastructure
Investment
And Jobs Act
(2021)
Rebuild
Infrastructure
$1.2t Over
10 Years
For Roads,
Bridges,
Broadband,
Water
Construction
Industry;
States; Some
Citizen Benefit
Infrastructure:
~30% Of Gap
Chips And
Science Act
(2022)
Domestic
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
$52b In
Subsidies To
Semiconductor
Companies
Semiconductor
Industry
None
Directly
Inflation
Reduction
Act (2022)
Climate,
Deficit,
Healthcare
Climate
Investment;
Medicare
Negotiates 10
Drug Prices;
Extended Aca
Subsidies
Mixed—
Climate
Industries;
Pharma Took
Limited Hit
Healthcare
Cost: 10
Drugs Of
Thousands
Bipartisan
Safer
Communities
Act (2022)
Gun Violence
Response
Modest
Background
Check
Expansion;
Closed
Boyfriend
Loophole
Gun Safety
Advocates
(Modest Win)
Gun Deaths:
Minimal
Vs Scale Of
Problem
Honoring
Our Pact Act
(2022)
Veterans’ Toxic
Exposure Care
Expanded Va
Care For Burn
Pit Veterans
Veterans Healthcare:
Specific To
Veterans
Major Federal Laws
275
Respect For
Marriage Act
(2022)
Codify Same-
Sex Marriage
Federal
Codification
In Case Of
Obergefell
Reversal
Lgbtq Citizens None Of
21 Lagging
Indicators
Electoral
Count Reform
Act (2022)
Close 2020
Election
Loophole
Clarified Vp’s
Ceremonial
Role; Raised
Objection
Threshold
Election
Integrity
Democracy
Quality:
Narrow Fix
Only
Fiscal
Responsibility
Act (2023)
Raise Debt
Ceiling
Suspended
Ceiling;
Capped Some
Spending
Bond Markets;
Federal
Solvency
None
Directly
Ndaas
(2015–2024,
Annual)
Defense
Authorization
Authorized
$850b–$900b/
Year Average
Defense
Contractors;
Military
Services
None Of 21
Indicators
Social
Security
Fairness Act
(2025)
Repeal Wep/
Gpo
Restored Full
Social Security
To ~3m
Public-Sector
Retirees
Public-Sector
Retirees
(Narrow)
Retirement
Security:
Narrow
Laken Riley
Act (2025)
Immigration
Detention
Mandatory
Federal
Detention For
Undocument-
ed Immigrants
Charged With
Certain Crimes
Immigration
Enforcement
Contractors
None Of 21
Indicators
One Big
Beautiful Bill
Act (2025)
“Working
Families Tax
Cut”
Made 2017
Corporate
Cuts
Permanent;
Cut Medicaid
$1t+; Added
$4.7t To Deficit
Through 2035
Corporations;
Top 1%;
Shareholders
None—
Worsened
Healthcare
Access
The Quiet Collapse
276
Major Federal Laws
Genius Act
(2025)
Cryptocurren-
cy Stablecoin
Regulation
Legalized
Stablecoin
Issuance
Under Federal
Framework
Cryptocurren-
cy Industry
None Of 21
Indicators
Rescissions
Act (2025)
Claw Back Prior
Appropriations
Reduced
Federal
Spending
In Selected
Programs
Federal
Budget Hawks
None
Pattern Analysis
Laws whose primary beneficiary was capital, corporations, or specific
industries: fifteen. ESSA, Defend Trade Secrets, 21st Century Cures, TCJA,
Bipartisan Budget Act, SECURE Act, CHIPS, the annual NDAAs, Laken Riley,
OBBBA, GENIUS, Rescissions Act, FAST Act, Infrastructure Act (mixed but
contractor-heavy), Fiscal Responsibility Act.
Laws whose primary beneficiary was citizens, even partially: six.
First Step Act (narrow), CARES (mixed), American Rescue Plan (mixed),
IRA (mixed), Bipartisan Safer Communities (narrow), Honoring Our PACT
(narrow), Social Security Fairness (narrow), Respect for Marriage, Electoral
Count Reform.
Citizen-beneficial provisions allowed to expire: at least three.
Expanded Child Tax Credit (expired after one year; child poverty doubled
back). Enhanced ACA subsidies (expired December 2025; premiums up 20
percent nationally). Most TCJA individual provisions versus TCJA corporate
provisions were made permanent by OBBBA.
Fifteen of the twenty-one lagging citizen indicators received zero
significant federal legislation in the decade under review. Of the six that
did, three of the most effective citizen-serving provisions were allowed to
expire while the corresponding corporate provisions were made permanent.
The pattern is difficult to ignore: when legislation produced broad citizen
benefits, those benefits were often temporary; when legislation delivered
concentrated benefits to organized interests, those benefits were more
likely to become permanent features of federal policy.
277

Book placement and remaining work

Proposed placement: a short transition between the constitutional assessment and the citizens’ response, with this legislative record in the evidence appendix. Final appendix numbering follows the approved book master.

Remaining: verify every law’s identity and relevant provisions; finish verifying the comparison table; source the fiscal, health, infrastructure and enforcement claims; define and apply beneficiary and indicator categories; check later changes; then write a supported pattern finding. These are research and editorial tasks, not decisions requiring the author’s routine intervention.